Sunday, March 22, 1998

Conservative feminists do a flip-flop

By Sara Eckel

When the National Organization for Women stated its support for Kathleen Willey, you could almost smell the disappointment. Dashed were the hopes of more tales of feminist hypocrisy, a favorite theme ever since the presidential sex scandals took to the airwaves.

Willey, a former White House volunteer, told CBS' "60 Minutes" that President Clinton made an unwanted sexual advance after she met with him to ask for a job. The president, says Willey, tried to kiss her on the mouth, touched her breast and placed her hand on his genitals.

That's no way to treat a lady, and NOW president Patricia Ireland stepped forward to say so. "This is beyond the idea of a likable rogue or the womanizer and really into sexual assault, sexual abuse," Ireland said on NBC's "Today" show.

Other liberal women, including Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., and National Abortion Rights Action League President Kate Michelman, have also voiced their disgust. Said former Rep. Patricia Schroeder, a Colorado Democrat, "It makes my skin crawl."

The basic explanation for the feminist denunciation of Clinton is that the president's behavior has gotten so out of hand that feminists simply cannot let him hide behind their apron strings anymore. What no one seems interested in exploring is this: that this is the first truly credible accusation of sexual harassment we've seen lobbed against the president. That, contrary to popular belief, feminists don't just run around trying to snuff out any sort of sexual activity. That they really do weigh the evidence.

Because until now, it still looked pretty shaky. Despite the talk of "mounting numbers of women coming forward," there was really only one other sexual harassment accusation. And that was by someone whose motivations were suspicious at best - not because she had big hair, but because she had a contract with "No Excuses" jeans and had made offers to sell her silence for a job in Hollywood. She also blew off NOW's Ireland, who had requested a meeting with her. That's not to say Paula Jones doesn't have a case - she might - but rather to say that if Democratic women were reluctant to rally behind her, they had sufficient cause.

The Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky allegations, however tawdry, were about consensual affairs, which is not something feminist groups would take a stand on, anyway. (And really - would we want them to?)

But Willey is different. Not only does she appear to be extremely credible, but she also does not seem to have a lot to gain from coming forward. And the incident she describes, if true, could certainly form the basis for a sexual harassment case.

Not that she would necessarily win - the allegations describe a single incident, and the legal standard for sexual harassment requires the unwelcome behavior be repeated. But she certainly deserves to be heard. Just as Anita Hill did - which was all that her feminist supporters were asking for.

Speaking of the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas affair, I have another question: Why is no one noticing all of the interesting turnarounds on the other side of the coin? I mean, what are we to make of all the Clarence Thomas supporters who are now shocked, shocked by the allegations against the president?

Consider Laura Ingraham. A former clerk to Thomas and a member of the Independent Women's Forum, a group founded by conservative women in response to their opposition of Hill's testimony against Thomas, Ingraham has made a career out of bashing feminists on TV talk shows. So it was very interesting to hear her expressing sympathy for Willey on "Crossfire." Not only did she say she personally believed Willey and thought that if the allegations proved true, Clinton would be guilty of sexual assault, but she also offered a compassionate explanation as to why Willey didn't come forward sooner: "I think she may have been in the same kind of denial that a lot of women in this kind of situation engage in," she said.

Regarding Willey's warm correspondences with the president, Ingraham also spoke like a true feminist: "When I first heard about the letters, I thought, wow, her credibility is really damaged. Then I actually put myself in her shoes. This is someone who supported the president, who admired the president, who went to him for help. Was she just going to, you know, sue him? Take him to court? Was she going to give up everything she worked for and walk away from the White House? I don't think so. I don't think most women would do that in that situation. I think it is really unfair to think that."

Well put, Laura. I agree with you completely. Now I have just one question: Where were you when Anita Hill needed you?

E-mail Sara Eckel at saraeum@aol.com.

Newspaper Enterprise Assn.